DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
		BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
	~	              2 NAVY ANNEX
		       WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
	BJG
Docket No:9708-06
1 December 2006

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. application on 30 November 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 October 2006, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB., except it did not find you were alleging influence of the reporting officials for both contested fitness reports by an individual not in either of the reporting chains involved. Rather, the Board found you did allege the reviewing officer for the report for 15 June to 30 September 1999 influenced the
reporting seniors for both reports. The Board was unable to find you were marked down in the reports at issue because you had filed an equal opportunity complaint. In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

W.	DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-57Q3

				IN REPLY REFER TO:
											1610 MMER/PERB
OCT 26 2006

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

~.

(a) Form 149 of 5 Jun 06
(b)	MCO Pl610.7E w/Ch 1

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to consider
petition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990615 to 19990930 (TR) and 19991001 to 19991231 (AN) was requested.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
submission of the reports.

2.	The petitioner contends the reports should be removed because they are unfair and unjust. She believes one of the reporting officials was biased towards her and also believes that an individual outside the reporting chain influenced reporting officials on both reports causing the reports to be prejudicial and biased as well.

3.	In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Per paragraph 1005.4 of reference (b), personal biases have absolutely no place in the evaluation process. In this case, the Board found the petitioner does not provide any substantive evidence to show that any of the reporting officials had an ulterior motive when evaluating her overall performance. The petitioner provides a copy of a Request Mast that was submitted claiming the reviewing officer for the fitness report covering the period 19990615 to 19990930 (TR) treated her unfairly. The petitioner initially wanted to see the Commanding General to resolve this issue; however, the petitioner accepted the Commanding Officer’s action and was satisfied with his findings and resolution. The Commanding Officer basically found

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APLLICATION IN THE CASE OF
	__	__

that the medical staff was at fault and not the reviewing officer. After reviewing the documentation, the Board found that there was nothing substantive to demonstrate any unfair treatment occurred by the reporting officials that authored the fitness report for the period 19991001 to 19991231 (AN)

b.	In response to the petitioner’s statement regarding the court-martial of the reviewing officer, the Board found the comment to be true; however, they found the offenses for which he was convicted had no relevance or connection to the petitioner’s evaluations.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods
19990615 to 19990930 (TR) an~. 19991001 to 19991231 (AN) should
remain a part military record.

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
-	Personnel Management Division Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps